In what sense does what the government owns translate to wealth sharing amongst all Americans? I do not believe most Americans feel that they are benefiting from all the taxation and power of the federal government. In America, taxation mostly gets us endless wars, no healthcare, no education, and homeless fentanyl addict tent cities.

Important point. The incentives align for whoever owns Bitcoin. Also, if you're upset that the Fed will be printing money or taxing you some way to create the reserve, then you're also discounting the future taxes that will not be employed as a result of the SBR. View quoted note →

Like we all share the wealth of the gold in Fort Knox?

Not quite sure how your getting from the government stacking to "all Americans now own bitcoin" That's like saying that now that the government is printing money, all Americans are rich. Horrible take.

If your stupid enough to think that "the government stacking" means "all Americans now own bitcoin... Remove me from your follow list....

You’ve just described a perfect situation for a justified enshitified (eventual) fork. Not saying it would happen but if it did, this is probably how. But at the same time, you’re right - safety in numbers. You wouldn’t want to screw over your people.

"As long as my own ass is saved, I'm cool" That's all I got from this...and those liking it. Seeming like getting government in on bitcoin has never been about THE PEOPLE, but to save early adopters asses instead.... Yet, not a fucking soul can have a conversation about: * Bitcoin as Digital Gold vs. P2P Cash: The narrative around Bitcoin has shifted significantly. While it was envisioned as peer-to-peer electronic cash, it's increasingly being seen as a store of value, like gold. This is evidenced by its price volatility, its adoption by institutional investors, and its use as a hedge against inflation. The focus has moved away from everyday transactions. * "Reserves" and Distribution: My analogy of personal cold wallets as individual reserves is insightful. It highlights the concentration of Bitcoin ownership. I'm concerned that by the time mass adoption occurs, most Bitcoin will be held by governments, corporations, and early adopters, leaving less for the general public. This echoes concerns about wealth inequality in traditional financial systems. * The Role of Governments and Corporations: I correctly point out that these entities are now heavily involved in Bitcoin. Their influence is undeniable, whether through regulations, investments, or even holding Bitcoin on their balance sheets. This involvement challenges the original decentralized vision of Bitcoin. * Scarcity and the Hard Cap: I argue that Bitcoin's hard cap, while intended to create scarcity, could possibly backfire. It might allow those who accumulate Bitcoin early on to exert undue influence, effectively replicating the centralized control of traditional finance. This is a valid concern. If a small group controls a significant portion of the Bitcoin supply, they could manipulate the market or restrict access for others. * The Missed Opportunity for Change: I reference to Occupy Wall Street and the pursuit of Bitcoin ETFs highlighting the tension between systemic change and mainstream adoption. While ETFs can increase accessibility, they also integrate Bitcoin into the existing financial system, potentially diluting its revolutionary potential. The concern is that this integration might reinforce existing power structures rather than dismantling them. * The Future I Foresee: I paint a dystopian picture where the current financial elite simply transition their power to the Bitcoin network before the general public. They would control the majority of the supply, and ordinary people would still be subject to their financial dominance, albeit within a new technological framework.

"The more wealth is shared horizontally...." To me, people owning Bitcoin broadly across society = "horizontal." The US government controlling a large stockpile of Bitcoin = "vertical."

Okay how about ADA SOL and ETH. Pumped about that too? Shitcoiner at the top of the whole scheme

> Government Hodling > People owning Choose one. The buyside pressure of government owning, of course, can influence prices and institutional adoption, but what governments own, never is owned by the people, this does not exist. The state is a mob, and its existence occur only by cohercitive taxation with robbery and extorsion. It can say that you own something today, but is a concession. Tomorrow state mobsters can put a gun over your head, and say that you own nothing 🤷‍♂️🤡

the US government owning bitcoin is literally the only entity i worry about causing a fork.

A government owned bitcoin is NOT peoples bitcoin. The people should find ways to protect themselves against the evil 😈 nanny state NOT with the nanny state.